Boucher v. Steffes

• Court: Montana Supreme Court
• Decided: November 27, 1972
• Docket: 12207
• Status: Published

Opinion

No. 12207

I N THE SUPREIqE COURT O TI-TE STATE OF M N A A F OTN

EDGAR BOUCHER ,

P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,

-VS - J O E STEFFES , J R . , Defendant and A p p e l l a n t .

Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e S i x t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable A l f r e d B. C o a t e , Judge p r e s i d i n g .

Counsel of Record:

For Appellant :

W i l l i a m McNamer a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana.

F o r Respondent:

Gene H u n t l e y a r g u e d , Raker, 24ontana.

Submitted: O c t o b e r 20, 1972

Decided 'NQV2 7 4972 Filed: NOV2 '7 4972 M r , J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court.

This i s an appeal from the d e n i a l of a motion f o r change of venue from Fallon County t o Yellowstone County, Issue: Should t h e question of venue be reexamined when- ever t h e r e i s a change of p a r t i e s defendant? The f a c t s g i v i n g r i s e t o t h i s a c t i o n a r e n o t i n d i s p u t e . On May 4 , 1968, defendant Joe S t e f f e s , Jr, was involved i n an automobile accident i n western North Dakota. With him was h i s father-in-law, p l a i n t i f f Edgar Boucher, and one John W. Trudo. The accident involved a head-on c o l l i s i o n with a v e h i c l e operated by Edward J. Byer. The Byer c a r had been purchased t h a t day from t h e Erwin Heberle Ford Agency a t Baker, Montana, Byer was k i l l e d i n t h e c o l l i s o n and a l l t h r e e occu- pants of defendant's v e h i c l e were i n j u r e d , Following t h e accident defendant S t e f f e s moved h i s home from Baker i n Fallon County, t o Yellowstone County. Trudo f i l e d s u i t a g a i n s t defendant S t e f f e s and t h e adminis- t r a t r i x of t h e e s t a t e of Byer i n f e d e r a l c o u r t on February 10, 1970. O t h e same day p l a i n t i f f Boucher f i l e d a g a i n s t t h e same n defendants i n t h e s t a t e c o u r t i n Fallon County. Decedent Byer had no l i a b i l i t y insurance o r o t h e r resources which could be used t o pay a judgment, i f one were rendered a g a i n s t him, A question arose: Whether, i n view of t h e f a c t Byer had purchased t h e c a r t h a t day, t h e insurance p o l i c y of t h e Heberle Ford Agency might a t t a c h by v i r t u e of t h e holding of t h i s Court i n I r i o n v. Glens F a l l s I n s . Co,, 154 Mont, 156, 461 P.2d 199? A f t e r l i t i g a t i o n i n t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t determined t h e Heberle Ford Agency p o l i c y d i d n o t a f f o r d p r o t e c t i o n t o Boucher o r Trudo, t h e a d m i n i s t r a t r i x of ~ y e r ' se s t a t e p e t i t i o n e d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r discharge on t h e grounds t h e r e were no a s s e t s , no insurance, and t h e r e f o r e , no reason t o continue with t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of t h e e s t a t e , The c o u r t dismissed t h e e s t a t e a s a p a r t y defendant with p r e j u d i c e , Defendant S t e f f e s then moved f o r a change i n t h e p l a c e of t r i a l t o Yellowstone County on t h e grounds t h a t he had a r i g h t t o t r i a l i n t h e county of h i s residence; t h a t the a c c i d e n t had occurred i n the s t a t e of North Dakota; t h a t he could n o t t h e r e t o - f o r e have moved f o r a change of p l a c e of t r i a l because defendant to a d m i n i s t r a t r i x was a proper p a r t y / t h e a c t i o n and a r e s i d e n t of Fallon County; t h a t t h e j o i n d e r of defendant a d m i n i s t r a t r i x was c o n d i t i o n a l - i n i t i o and because of h e r voluntary d i s m i s s a l t h e ab p l a i n t i f f had not met t h e l e g a l requirements of pleading and proving a cause of a c t i o n a g a i n s t h e r i n order t o maintain venue, o r i n the a l t e r n a t i v e did not bring the action against her i n good f a i t h i n t h e l e g a l sense required t o e s t a b l i s h and maintain venue i n Fallon County. Further, t h a t t r i a l i n Fallon County would be p r e j u d i c i a l t o defendant S t e f f e s because p l a i n t i f f i s a r e s i d e n t of Fallon County and t h a t t h e proper county f o r t r i a l i s Yellowstone County. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t denied t h e motion and t h i s appeal i s taken from t h e r u l i n g , Defendant c i t e s no Montana a u t h o r i t y t o support h i s posi- t i o n t h a t where t h e r e a r e m u l t i p l e defendants when t h e cause i s i n s t i t u t e d and where the r e s i d e n t defendants a r e dropped, t h e remaining defendant o r defendants have a r i g h t t o change t h e venue t o t h e i r jurisdiction. He n o t e s , quoting Rapp v, Graham, 145 Mont. 371, 401 P.2d 579, t h a t t h e r i g h t of a defendant f o r t r i a l i n t h e county of h i s residence i s an important r i g h t . W agree e with t h e r u l e s s e t f o r t h t h e r e , but t h e f a c t s i t u a t i o n s of t h e two c a s e s a r e not s i m i l a r . Rapp was a c o n t r a c t c a s e with j u s t one defendant, Nor a r e we persuaded by t h e out of j u r i s d i c t i o n c a s e s c i t e d by defendant: Gunnoe v. West V i r g i n i a Poultry Co-op Ass'n, 115 W.Va, 87, 174 S.E. 691, 93 A . L , R , 944; Turner v. Superior Court, 3 Ariz.App, 414, 415 P.2d 129; L e s t e r v , Rose, 147 W.Va, 575, 130 S.E.2d 80; Delaney v , Atterbury, 189 Okla. 361, 116 P.2d. 968, ~ o n t a n a ' svenue s t a t u t e s , T i t l e 93, Ch. 29, R.C,M, 1947, were taken from t h e s t a t e of C a l i f o r n i a and t h a t j u r i s d i c t i o n has r u l e d on t h e very problem presented t o us here. Before d i s c u s s i n g t h e r u l e s e t f o r t h by a s e r i e s of C a l i f o r n i a c a s e s , we n o t e t h a t Kansas e a r l y adopted t h e C a l i f o r n i a view, Hawkins v. Brown, 78 Kan. 284, 97 I?. 479. The C a l i f o r n i a view a l s o appears t o be followed by f e d e r a l c a s e s , where t h e question a r i s e s a s t o whether t h e p l a i n t i f f has joined a r e s i d e n t of t h e s t a t e i n order t o prevent removal. For a d i s c u s s i o n of t h e f e d e r a l view s e e Cyclopedia of Federal Procedure, Vol. 2 , 5 3.71. A long l i n e of C a l i f o r n i a c a s e s has followed an e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d r u l e t h a t a motion f o r a change of venue w i l l be determined by t h e s t a t u s of t h e p a r t i e s and pleadings a t t h e time t h e moving p a r t y appears i n the a c t i o n . Remington Sewing Machine Co. v, Cole, 62 Cal. 311(1882); Ferguson v. Koerber, 69 Cal.App. 47, 230 P. 476; W a f t v. I n n i s , 57 Cel.App~'637; 135 P.2d 29; C a l i f o r n i a C o l l e c t i o n Agency v. Fontana, 61 cal.App.l;d 648, 143 P.2d 507, 510; White v. Kaiser Frazer Corp. 100 Cal,Appe3ct/ 754, 224 P,2d 833;Freeman v. Dowling, 219 Cal. 213, 25 P.2d 980; Bancroft's Code P r a c t i c e and Remedies, V. 2, 5 1006, p, 1447. W f i n d the r u l e a s s t a t e d i n C a l i f o r n i a C o l l e c t i o n Agency e most s u c c i n c t l y s t a t e s t h e r u l e t h a t we adopt h e r e i n : 11 I n our opinion t h e r u l e , supported by reason and by a u t h o r i t y , i s t h a t upon t h e hearing of t h e motion f o r change of venue under t h e circumstances presented h e r e , t h e r e a l i s s u e f o r determination by t h e t r i a l c o u r t was whether p l a i n t i f f , i n j o i n i n g t h e r e s i d e n t defendant a s a p a r t y , had reasonable grounds f o r t h e b e l i e f i n good f a i t h t h a t p l a i n t i f f I1 had a cause of a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e r e s i d e n t defendant. The decision of t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s affirmed. We Concur:

judge Associate Justice Cas